Roy Moore, OJ Simpson, And why I don't believe you.

[fool]

Moore didn't survive the smell test. So that's done...reminds me of that Sheriff you liked that struck me as someone who wanted to play cowboy.

Wisconsin has more cattle than Alabama.

Did you read about his conduct in relation to a passenger on an airline flight? Apparently the other guy wasn't respectful enough to suit the sheriff. The Milwaukee County controllers found he "used his official position as sheriff of Milwaukee County in excess of his lawful authority" to give the guy a hard time.

Not what happened at all but it's insightful to hear your view of it.
Did the Sheriff address the man or did the man address the Sheriff? I don't see how you can sustain your view when the man made the contact.

What was the passenger's offense? He wouldn't tell the sheriff what he thought of him for fear of getting into trouble.

He asked if he was Sheriff Clarke and when he said yes he shook his head at him. That was his offence. Did he drag one finger across his throat? Nope. But if he's not a fan then why bother asking? That's all Clarke wanted to know. Was this guy harboring an animus? Did Sheriff Clarke have to worry about this guy attacking him after they landed? Was he tweeting up an ambush?
All legit concerns and so Clarke had some of his boys meet him at the gate. That's called prudent. He even told them no arrest as long as he's not an *******.

Clarke texted to get the passenger detained and interviewed for his attitude.

Full Stop. He was not interviewed for his attitude.

Clarke's text read, “Just a field interview, no arrest unless he becomes an [redacted] with your guys. Question for him is why he said anything to me. Why didn’t he just keep his mouth shut?”

And there you have it, He was not interviewed for his attitude as you claim, he was interviewed for approaching him and verifying his identity.

The passenger was met by 6 deputies and two dogs.

I believe the dogs are Deputies as well.
At least I think they are in Michigan which is not in Wisconsin.

A subsequent review of emails led to the conclusion the sheriff had either directly himself or encouraged others within his office to advance harassing communications aimed at the passenger on FB, though no charges were filed criminally in relation to civil rights violations given the limited statutory advance available and the belief that it would be difficult to meet the standard for conviction. A civil suit remains pending.

So no charges.

Link to article including the DOJ letter to Clarke.

I don't see a link there.

 

[Town Heretic]

Wisconsin has more cattle than Alabama.

A dairy has more cows than many most actual cowboys will, since most aren't owners of cattle. That curious point aside, to be clear, I wasn't comparing Wisconsin to Alabama at any point on the point.

Not what happened at all but it's insightful to hear your view of it.

Actually it was Milwaukee County's view.

Did the Sheriff address the man or did the man address the Sheriff?

According to the report, the man (Black) asked if Clarke was the sheriff. Clarke's response was to ask if the man had a problem with that. A fairly combative choice. Black responded to the bully statement by saying he wouldn't answer the question because he didn't want to get in any trouble.

That would have been that except that Clarke decided to use his position to shove the guy around. And that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the county that investigated it.

I don't see how you can sustain your view when the man made the contact.

I don't know why you believe a tax paying citizen asking a public servant for a voluntary confirmation of his employment is grounds for being detained. So I guess we're both mystified.

He asked if he was Sheriff Clarke and when he said yes he shook his head at him.

Not according to testimony. I mean, he may have shaken his head too, but the question was more aggressive and the answer was about what I'd expect from someone who ran into it, didn't want to defer, but wasn't stupid enough to push it further. Clarke's subsequent actions line up with it too.

That was his offence. Did he drag one finger across his throat? Nope. But if he's not a fan then why bother asking?

Because he thought he recognized him and wanted to confirm it. Maybe he was just curious. Or maybe he was going to say something to a buddy later. You know, "I saw that cowboy sheriff from Wisconsin on the flight yesterday." That sort of thing. Because if he wanted to make something of it he passed on the opportunity.

That's all Clarke wanted to know.

No. If that's all you want to know you say, "That's me. What can I do for you?" or "Can I help you?" Lots of public servants would do exactly that. But the response he chose let Black know it was better to leave it there. Unfortunately, Clarke didn't.

Was this guy harboring an animus?

Who cares so long as he didn't harass, attempt to berate, ect? No one, including Clarke, has suggested the man was suspicious or did anything more, in any way making the sheriff fearful.

Did Sheriff Clarke have to worry about this guy attacking him after they landed?

Clarke never suggested it.

Was he tweeting up an ambush?

Not that you could tell by anything Clarke said.

All legit concerns

Not without a lot more than a question and that response. Not reasonably. And Clarke didn't suggest he was worried. He just made sure the insolent fellow got his. And then, according to the investigators, he made sure he got a little more.

and so Clarke had some of his boys meet him at the gate. That's called prudent. He even told them no arrest as long as he's not an *******.

Yeah, see, you don't arrest people for being that, or even detain them because you don't find an inquiry as respectful as you'd like to have it, unless you're exactly what he told his buddies to act on.

Full Stop. He was not interviewed for his attitude.

There was no other reason to detain him. The cowboy didn't like the guy's attitude and he gave him something to chew on. Then later he and/or his buddies gave him a little more to chew on using social media (FB). Childish abuse of power. A civil rights violation? Probably not.

And there you have it,

Yes, but not as you mean it. He tells his buddies to detain the man and ask why he didn't keep his mouth shut? That is right in line with, "You have a problem with that?" and the attitude that attends it. He wanted that question so the guy would understand. Why you don't is anyone's guess.

He was not interviewed for his attitude as you claim, he was interviewed for approaching him and verifying his identity.

Which is neither a criminal offense or grounds to detain anyone. Which is why his own county found that Clarke, “used his official position as sheriff of Milwaukee County in excess of his lawful authority to direct his deputies to stop and question Black without legal justification.”

I believe the dogs are Deputies as well.

Wouldn't surprise me.

At least I think they are in Michigan which is not in Wisconsin.

Okay. Milwaukee, where the plane was bound, landed, and where officers actually questioned Black is in Wisconsin. The dogs may or might not have been deputies and vice versa.

So no charges.

No criminal charges. A civil suit pending and a finding by the Milwaukee Auditor that Clarke was wrong to act as he did, supra. Too hard to make the civil rights case on the limited statutory grounds as things stand. You should read the letter. In part it reads, "Our decision is not meant to affirm the wisdom or propriety of what occurred." Or, as lawyers go, they're telling him they think he was that thing he was worried about Black being, but without more his conduct didn't rise to a clearly winnable case as per civil rights violations.

I don't see a link there.

Shoot. Meant to leave one. Here's one: link.

 

[fool]

According to the report, the man (Black) asked if Clarke was the sheriff. Clarke's response was to ask if the man had a problem with that. A fairly combative choice. Black responded to the bully statement by saying he wouldn't answer the question because he didn't want to get in any trouble.

FALSE.
That's not what happened.
From your article;

According to the affidavit, Black told Milwaukee investigators that he spotted Clarke after the men boarded the Milwaukee-bound plane in Dallas on Jan. 15. When he asked Clarke if he was, in fact, the sheriff, and Clarke confirmed it, Black said he shook his head. When Clarke asked him if he had a “problem” with that, Black said he didn’t respond because he didn’t want to get in trouble.

So let's unpack your description of it;
You said-

the man (Black) asked if Clarke was the sheriff. Clarke's response was to ask if the man had a problem with that.

What happened-

When he asked Clarke if he was, in fact, the sheriff, and Clarke confirmed it, Black said he shook his head.

So Clarke's response was not "Do you have a problem with that" as you claim. His response was to answer the question.
Then the guy-

Shook his head

A fairly combative choice, I don't know of any culture where shaking your head at someone is friendly or neutral. Do you? And is it in Wisconsin?
You continue-

Black responded to the bully statement by saying he wouldn't answer the question because he didn't want to get in any trouble.

Black didn't say anything, he just shook his head and walked away, he did not respond as you claim. Clarke asked him if he had a problem AFTER he shook his head.

That would have been that except that Clarke decided to use his position to shove the guy around. And that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the county that investigated it.

Questioning him at the airport was completely legit. Whatever happened on Facebook was beneath the dignity of the Department.

I don't know why you believe a tax paying citizen asking a public servant for a voluntary confirmation of his employment is grounds for being detained. So I guess we're both mystified.

It was the head shake and the walk away.

Because he thought he recognized him and wanted to confirm it. Maybe he was just curious. Or maybe he was going to say something to a buddy later. You know, "I saw that cowboy sheriff from Wisconsin on the flight yesterday." That sort of thing. Because if he wanted to make something of it he passed on the opportunity.

He already made something of it when he shook his head at him and walked away. I what culture is that a neutral action?

No. If that's all you want to know you say, "That's me. What can I do for you?" or "Can I help you?" Lots of public servants would do exactly that. But the response he chose let Black know it was better to leave it there. Unfortunately, Clarke didn't.

False. Not what happened at all. Clarke confirmed then Black shook his head. IT's right there in the article. THEN Clarke asked the head shaker if there was a problem because shaking your head at someone isn't very friendly.

Who cares so long as he didn't harass, attempt to berate, ect? No one, including Clarke, has suggested the man was suspicious or did anything more, in any way making the sheriff fearful.

He didn't need to do anymore he had done enough.

Clarke never suggested it.

He didn't not suggest it either. Tell us Town, do you have a transcript of what was going thru Clarke's head at the time?

Not that you could tell by anything Clarke said.

How would Clarke know if the guy was tweeting up an ambush?

Not without a lot more than a question and that response. Not reasonably. And Clarke didn't suggest he was worried. He just made sure the insolent fellow got his. And then, according to the investigators, he made sure he got a little more.

He didn't "get his", he was questioned as to why he approached him and made a hostile gesture. That is all.

Yeah, see, you don't arrest people for being that, or even detain them because you don't find an inquiry as respectful as you'd like to have it, unless you're exactly what he told his buddies to act on.

For the millionth time it wasn't the inquiry that was the problem. It was the hostile gesture made in response to the answer.

There was no other reason to detain him. The cowboy didn't like the guy's attitude and he gave him something to chew on. Then later he and/or his buddies gave him a little more to chew on using social media (FB). Childish abuse of power. A civil rights violation? Probably not.

He didn't like his gesture. A hostile gesture. that's what the airport was about. Whatever happened on Facebook was out of line.

Yes, but not as you mean it. He tells his buddies to detain the man and ask why he didn't keep his mouth shut? That is right in line with, "You have a problem with that?" and the attitude that attends it. He wanted that question so the guy would understand. Why you don't is anyone's guess.

Why you don't understand that asking "are you Town Heritic?" and the shaking ones head when you say yes and walking away is a hostile gesture is anybodies guess.

Which is neither a criminal offense or grounds to detain anyone. Which is why his own county found that Clarke, “used his official position as sheriff of Milwaukee County in excess of his lawful authority to direct his deputies to stop and question Black without legal justification.”

Oh yeah, the "Audit Services Division of the Milwaukee County controller’s office" has an opinion. Good for them.

Wouldn't surprise me.

Actuallly I found out that;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_dog

Though many police departments formally swear dogs in as police officers, this swearing-in is purely honorary, and carries no legal significance

No criminal charges. A civil suit pending and a finding by the Milwaukee Auditor that Clarke was wrong to act as he did, supra. Too hard to make the civil rights case on the limited statutory grounds as things stand. You should read the letter. In part it reads, "Our decision is not meant to affirm the wisdom or propriety of what occurred." Or, as lawyers go, they're telling him they think he was that thing he was worried about Black being, but without more his conduct didn't rise to a clearly winnable case as per civil rights violations.

So, no charges.

Shoot. Meant to leave one. Here's one: link.

 

[WizardofOz]

I certainly respect your opinion so I am curious what qualities make you throw your support to a certain candidate?

Big hands and a awesome comb-over.

:rotfl:
I have always appreciate your sense of humor :e4e:

It's always a lose/lose situation. Unless you run yourself you'll have to pick someone.

Absolutely agree. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of (if any) politicians worthy of respect on a personal level. So, we're stuck voting for the ideology that drives them. Or, more often than not, we vote against the ideology of their opponent.

A smaller slice of a bigger pie is still more pie. Trump thinks he can grow the economy and that would mean more revenue even if the Gov gets a smaller percentage.
On spending he has disappointed me.

I am thrilled with tax cuts and, like you, am concerned about cuts with a combination of increase spending. It's backwards on it's face given the already ballooning deficits but it's not like Clinton was going to cut spending either.

Trump has shown a willingness to cut bloat and I am cautiously optimistic about what he may cut in the future.

Cutting funding to the UN, for example? Great. Keep it coming.

He once played the golf pro at one of his resorts and beat him. Fired him on the spot. That's what I wanted.

That's actually pretty funny and logical. I had never heard that before.

I wanted him to walk around and cut waste like a businessman. Make people do their jobs. Get me my money's worth. He's done some of that but not enough tangible.

I agree but for the love of pete, I wish he'd stay off twitter.

Case in point. The Texas church shooter had felonies in the service that weren't reported to the database. We find out almost NONE of the crimes committed while in the Air Force got put into the database. Heads should have rolled for that but I don't see any heads rolling.

Absolutely. Like with his golf pro, if a person is incompetent, replace them. At least make them accountable so that mistakes are not repeated.

He shall be the greatest President we've had for the next Hundred Years.
It's tough love. He didn't need to do this but he did for his children and grandchildren.
He's the Wealthiest person to ever hold the office. He's the Oldest person to ever hold the office.

He was 47 years old when he took the office.
A 47 year old junior Senator from Illinois with a whole two years in Washington under his belt.
He'd never run anything bigger that his campaign.

I've come to realize that it's what he does policy-wise that matters. I think he is in many ways a buffoon on a personal level but I'll support his presidency if I see policy moving in the right direction. I'm not a never-Trumper but he makes himself difficult to like for anyone either on the fence or on the opposite side.

Back to Moore, my only regret is not speaking out more (see what I did there? ) against Davis. I never intended to have my lack of belief in Moore's recollection of events come across as an endorsement of Davis.

That's always something that has irked me about political tribalism. When I criticized Hillary, her supporters called me a Trump supporter. When I criticize Trump, [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION] calls me a leftist. It hurts my feelings :chuckle:

Either way, I appreciate your level-headedness.

Have a Happy New Year, fool!

 

[Town Heretic]

FALSE.
That's not what happened.

Nothing in that was wrong, though I did get one part wrong after that.

So Clarke's response was not "Do you have a problem with that" as you claim. His response was to answer the question.

I didn't say he didn't answer the question. I said he asked Black if he had a problem with that, which is what he asked Black. What I got wrong was the head shake by Black before the question and reading Black's reason why as a verbal response.

So, to sum, Black asks if Clarke is the sheriff, Clarke says he is, Black shakes his head and Clarke asks if he has a problem with that. At that point Black has decided to disengage because of the attitude he's reading from the sheriff.

Black didn't say anything, he just shook his head and walked away, he did not respond as you claim.

Right. I got that wrong. Mea culpa. Doesn't change much, but sure. He just walked away. Not even the "trouble" remark. Pretty innocuous.

Questioning him at the airport was completely legit.

No, it wasn't. He misused his authority. The Milwaukee authority charged with making that assessment said so. The FBI agreed and investigated. The defining authority refused to exonerate him (which it could have done) in its explanation of why charges would not be sought on the statutory authority.

Whatever happened on Facebook was beneath the dignity of the Department.

It was petty and aggressive. Or, in keeping with the actions of the sheriff to a nothing encounter.

It was the head shake and the walk away.

No, it's the ego of the sheriff getting in his way. It's about someone with the authority to blow up nothing into something because he was offended by Black's disapproval and how he appears to see and use his authority.

...He didn't not suggest it either. Tell us Town, do you have a transcript of what was going thru Clarke's head at the time?

He didn't say it when it would have served him. He didn't indicate it to the guys he put on Black. If he suspected something remotely sinister and didn't alert the deputies then he'd be failing his duty to them. But we both know that had nothing to do with this, or we should by now.

Clarke met the mildest imaginable rebuke with a petulant response that abused his authority. We can see Black's decision to walk away was prudent, that the "problem with that" was spoken as I described it. We can see that in the ridiculous response to the walk away, along with subsequent actions on the part of the sheriff.

How would Clarke know if the guy was tweeting up an ambush?

Again, the sheriff never indicated any apprehension. He is a trained law enforcement agent. You can bet his boots he'd have communicated that to the guys he set in the path of Black, instead of asking them to ask Black why he didn't "just shut his mouth."

If you can't see Clarke in that question, in his request, and in his response to Black before pushing it, then you just don't want to see him.

For the millionth time it wasn't the inquiry that was the problem. It was the hostile gesture made in response to the answer. He didn't like his gesture. A hostile gesture. that's what the airport was about. Whatever happened on Facebook was out of line.

No, it's a negative gesture. A hostile gesture, by which I mean one that would cause any reasonable person to wonder or be concerned, would be that slash across the throat, or a bird, or some overtly hostile, aggressive display. That would have justified action. That wasn't offered.

And that lack of grounds, along with subsequent behavior, is what led Milwaukee County to issue its finding against the sheriff.

Why you don't understand that asking "are you Town Heritic?" and the shaking ones head when you say yes and walking away is a hostile gesture is anybodies guess.

Because I can distinguish someone who obviously disapproves of me from someone who is actually threatening me.

Oh yeah, the "Audit Services Division of the Milwaukee County controller’s office" has an opinion. Good for them.

It's their job. So yeah, good for them for doing it. You think law enforcement don't get reasonable doubt from their own county? And the FBI applied for and was granted a warrant for search upon a pleading that they found reasonable grounds for believing that the sheriff had violated two different statutory provisions in his actions.

So, no charges.

Look, if you don't want to see what the lawyers, FBI, and County of Milwaukee are telling you, I'll just shake my head and walk. Try not to have me hassled or followed and harrassed on FB thereafter.

 

[kmoney]

Moore didn't survive the smell test. So that's done...reminds me of that Sheriff you liked that struck me as someone who wanted to play cowboy.

Did you read about his conduct in relation to a passenger on an airline flight? Apparently the other guy wasn't respectful enough to suit the sheriff. The Milwaukee County controllers found he "used his official position as sheriff of Milwaukee County in excess of his lawful authority" to give the guy a hard time.

What was the passenger's offense? He wouldn't tell the sheriff what he thought of him for fear of getting into trouble. Clarke texted to get the passenger detained and interviewed for his attitude. Clarke's text read, “Just a field interview, no arrest unless he becomes an [redacted] with your guys. Question for him is why he said anything to me. Why didn’t he just keep his mouth shut?”

The passenger was met by 6 deputies and two dogs. A subsequent review of emails led to the conclusion the sheriff had either directly himself or encouraged others within his office to advance harassing communications aimed at the passenger on FB, though no charges were filed criminally in relation to civil rights violations given the limited statutory advance available and the belief that it would be difficult to meet the standard for conviction. A civil suit remains pending.

Link to article including the DOJ letter to Clarke.

• Former Milwaukee county sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr. tweeted Saturday that he wanted to punch "the lying lib media" in the nose and "make them taste their own blood."

• Clarke attached a doctored photo to the tweet that showed President Donald Trump as a wrestler, holding another wrestler labeled "CNN," while a triumphant Clarke was shown kicking "CNN" in the face.

• Clarke unloaded on the media after they reported on a recently unsealed FBI affidavit alleging that Clarke used his position as sheriff to unlawfully detain a fellow flight passenger because he felt slighted by the man.

http://www.businessinsider.com/david-clarke-graphic-tweet-slams-press-amid-fbi-probe-reports-2017-12

 

[Town Heretic]

• Former Milwaukee county sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr. tweeted Saturday that he wanted to punch "the lying lib media" in the nose and "make them taste their own blood."

• Clarke attached a doctored photo to the tweet that showed President Donald Trump as a wrestler, holding another wrestler labeled "CNN," while a triumphant Clarke was shown kicking "CNN" in the face.

• Clarke unloaded on the media after they reported on a recently unsealed FBI affidavit alleging that Clarke used his position as sheriff to unlawfully detain a fellow flight passenger because he felt slighted by the man.

http://www.businessinsider.com/david-clarke-graphic-tweet-slams-press-amid-fbi-probe-reports-2017-12

Sounds like him. Some control and maturity issues there. Was he wearing his hat? And if so, did someone hand it to him?

 

[rexlunae]

Sounds like him. Some control and maturity issues there. Was he wearing his hat? And if so, did someone hand it to him?

Ultimately, the guy is a poser. It's all an act for the cameras. All those medals he wears pinned to his chest are fake, and he does it specifically to appeal to authoritarians like Trump who like to see that sort of thing, but don't know enough to know what they're looking for. He has to try to look tough for the cameras.

 

[rexlunae]

"So much was weird in 2017, but perhaps the weirdest was that people who nearly triggered a gun massacre to stop imaginary child molesters rallied to support an actual child molester's campaign for US Senate." -- David Frum

 

[fool]

:rotfl:
I have always appreciate your sense of humor :e4e:

If we're not laughing we're crying. Or dead inside.

Absolutely agree. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of (if any) politicians worthy of respect on a personal level. So, we're stuck voting for the ideology that drives them. Or, more often than not, we vote against the ideology of their opponent.

That's pretty much it.

I am thrilled with tax cuts and, like you, am concerned about cuts with a combination of increase spending. It's backwards on it's face given the already ballooning deficits but it's not like Clinton was going to cut spending either.

Trump has shown a willingness to cut bloat and I am cautiously optimistic about what he may cut in the future.

Cutting funding to the UN, for example? Great. Keep it coming.

Going on a diet.

That's actually pretty funny and logical. I had never heard that before.

I wonder if that pro golf pro lost on purpose because he was playing the boss.

I agree but for the love of pete, I wish he'd stay off twitter.

He will never get off Twitter. It's his mainline to every hand held on the Planet. We shall see if he can Twitter Iran into Freedom.

Back to Moore, my only regret is not speaking out more (see what I did there? ) against Davis. I never intended to have my lack of belief in Moore's recollection of events come across as an endorsement of Davis.

There were only two choices.

That's always something that has irked me about political tribalism. When I criticized Hillary, her supporters called me a Trump supporter. When I criticize Trump, [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION] calls me a leftist. It hurts my feelings :chuckle:

They attack the messenger.

Either way, I appreciate your level-headedness.

And I yours

Have a Happy New Year, fool!

Another glorious year of Trump!

 

[fool]

So, to sum, Black asks if Clarke is the sheriff, Clarke says he is, Black shakes his head and Clarke asks if he has a problem with that. At that point Black has decided to disengage because of the attitude he's reading from the sheriff.

The attitude he's reading off the guy he just shook his head at.
Let me explain something, when you approach a stranger in public and ask something of them and they respond then you NOD your head in acknowledgment.
You don't shake your head, that's rude and hostile.

Right. I got that wrong. Mea culpa. Doesn't change much, but sure. He just walked away. Not even the "trouble" remark. Pretty innocuous.

There's nothing innocuous on a plane.

No, it wasn't. He misused his authority. The Milwaukee authority charged with making that assessment said so. The FBI agreed and investigated. The defining authority refused to exonerate him (which it could have done) in its explanation of why charges would not be sought on the statutory authority.

They have their opinion and I have mine.

No, it's the ego of the sheriff getting in his way. It's about someone with the authority to blow up nothing into something because he was offended by Black's disapproval and how he appears to see and use his authority.

He was offended by Black's offence. What Black did was offensive and hostile and there was no need for it.

He didn't say it when it would have served him. He didn't indicate it to the guys he put on Black. If he suspected something remotely sinister and didn't alert the deputies then he'd be failing his duty to them. But we both know that had nothing to do with this, or we should by now.

I think what he did was prudent.

Clarke met the mildest imaginable rebuke with a petulant response that abused his authority. We can see Black's decision to walk away was prudent, that the "problem with that" was spoken as I described it. We can see that in the ridiculous response to the walk away, along with subsequent actions on the part of the sheriff.

I wasn't the "mildest imaginable rebuke", an airplane isn't the place to be rebuking people.

Again, the sheriff never indicated any apprehension. He is a trained law enforcement agent. You can bet his boots he'd have communicated that to the guys he set in the path of Black, instead of asking them to ask Black why he didn't "just shut his mouth."

See, you keep getting it wrong. There was no "just shut his mouth.".
It was;

Question for him is why he said anything to me. Why didn’t he just keep his mouth shut?”

See Town? There's a big difference between "shut your mouth" and "Keep your mouth shut".
It requires no effort at all to not bother someone on a plane if you're not a fan of them.
It's called the "If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all" rule and it defiantly applies on airplanes.

If you can't see Clarke in that question, in his request, and in his response to Black before pushing it, then you just don't want to see him.

Of course I can see Clarke in that question he's the one that asked it.

No, it's a negative gesture. A hostile gesture, by which I mean one that would cause any reasonable person to wonder or be concerned, would be that slash across the throat, or a bird, or some overtly hostile, aggressive display. That would have justified action. That wasn't offered.

Asking someone who they are so you make a negative gesture IS a hostile gesture.

And that lack of grounds, along with subsequent behavior, is what led Milwaukee County to issue its finding against the sheriff.

I don't care what the bean counters in the audit department think.

Because I can distinguish someone who obviously disapproves of me from someone who is actually threatening me.

Until they jump you in the parking lot.

It's their job. So yeah, good for them for doing it. You think law enforcement don't get reasonable doubt from their own county? And the FBI applied for and was granted a warrant for search upon a pleading that they found reasonable grounds for believing that the sheriff had violated two different statutory provisions in his actions.

But no charges, and whatever happened with the Facebook should be looked into. I have no problem with the airport.

Look, if you don't want to see what the lawyers, FBI, and County of Milwaukee are telling you, I'll just shake my head and walk. Try not to have me hassled or followed and harrassed on FB thereafter.

Well then I'll NOD and walk away because that's what we do when someone has taken the time to answer our questions

 

[fool]

Sounds like him. Some control and maturity issues there. Was he wearing his hat? And if so, did someone hand it to him?

Would you like him better without the hat?

 

[fool]

Ultimately, the guy is a poser. It's all an act for the cameras. All those medals he wears pinned to his chest are fake, and he does it specifically to appeal to authoritarians like Trump who like to see that sort of thing, but don't know enough to know what they're looking for. He has to try to look tough for the cameras.

Would you like him better in some different clothes?

 

[fool]

"So much was weird in 2017, but perhaps the weirdest was that people who nearly triggered a gun massacre to stop imaginary child molesters rallied to support an actual child molester's campaign for US Senate." -- David Frum

In reference to?

 

[The Barbarian]

America has come a long way down the path to dictatorship when a citizen can be detained for asking a sheriff if he's a sheriff, and refusing to talk further with him.

Clarke figured that he was the master, and that citizen got uppity with him. So he decided to teach him a lesson.

And it backfired on Clarke. Turns out the ruling class hasn't as much power as he thought.

 

[rexlunae]

In reference to?

Pizzagate and Roy Moore.

 

[Town Heretic]

The attitude he's reading off the guy he just shook his head at.

Clarke is the guy with the power. A guy walks away from you it's over. But not if you lack maturity and don't mind abusing your authority. The world has its share of those. He's one.

Let me explain something, when you approach a stranger in public and ask something of them and they respond then you NOD your head in acknowledgment. You don't shake your head, that's rude and hostile.

Let me explain something objectively true to you: when you use your office to harass someone because you don't like their attitude you cross a line that shouldn't be.

They have their opinion and I have mine.

All opinions aren't equal. For instance, you may weigh in on a court decision and consider it a matter of opinion too, but the judge's means more for a number of objective reasons. Same here.

He was offended by Black's offence.

He was offended by a lack of deference. All the guy did was ask a question, shake his head and walk away.

What Black did was offensive and hostile and there was no need for it.

Nothing hostile about it. Like I noted the last time you attempted to foist this, not even Clarke felt threatened by the guy, which is why he didn't communicate any worry. He just made sure Black was detained and asked why he didn't keep his mouth shut.

I think what he did was prudent.

The agency tasked with review said he abused his authority. The FBI said he did too. The DOJ made it pretty clear that the only reason they weren't prosecuting was the difficulty in making the standard by statute. In short, the people who generally favor and rally around a fellow officer of the law not only didn't, they voiced displeasure.

See, you keep getting it wrong. There was no "just shut his mouth.".
It was; "Keep your mouth shut."

There's no meaningful difference between the two. Both are an effort to let Black know that he's being inconvenienced by brother officers not for threatening Clarke, but for failing to show deference.

It requires no effort at all to not bother someone on a plane if you're not a fan of them.

And it takes no effort at all to leave it alone when the guy walked away.

Of course I can see Clarke in that question he's the one that asked it.

Right. He didn't want the guy arrested, just hassled. And he wanted them to ask a question that makes the point about why. It made a point all right, the one the County noted about abusing authority.

Asking someone who they are so you make a negative gesture IS a hostile gesture.

No, it isn't. It's a sign of disapproval, to be sure. I disapprove of all sorts of things that don't involve hostility. And Black left the conversation the moment Clarke registered a response that appeared to indicate an actual hostility to Black's response. An actual hostility that is evidenced by involving other officers, the question he wanted put to Black, and the subsequent childishness aimed at Black through social media.

It's pretty clear where the hostility lay here.

Until they jump you in the parking lot.

Nothing in Clarke's testimony speaks to any sense of worry. That's not why he had Black detained.

But no charges

Right. It's very, very hard to make those charges stick against an officer of the law. I completely understand the decision. A civil action will be much easier to prosecute. And it's going forward.

Would you like him better without the hat?

I like him better without the badge.

 

[Nihilo]

America has come a long way down the path to dictatorship when a citizen can be detained for asking a sheriff if he's a sheriff, and refusing to talk further with him.

Clarke figured that he was the master, and that citizen got uppity with him. So he decided to teach him a lesson.

And it backfired on Clarke. Turns out the ruling class hasn't as much power as he thought.

So which is it? :chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

Would you like him better in some different clothes?

Yes, but it's a symptom not the root problem. A man who parades around in public with fake medals on his chest is telling you something about themselves.

 

[Derf]

Absolutely agree. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of (if any) politicians worthy of respect on a personal level. So, we're stuck voting for the ideology that drives them. Or, more often than not, we vote against the ideology of their opponent.

I wonder why that is--the lack of worthy politicians.

• Maybe it's because politics changes people into something they weren't before.
• Or maybe it's because politics reveals who people really are--something they can hide better in other circumstances.
• Or maybe it's because people who are worthy don't tend to want to be seen in the company of most politicians.
• Or, last choice, if you can't act unworthy (whether real or fake), then you don't have what it takes to be a politician.

Whatever the cause, I guess we can say that politicians are as susceptible to being human as the rest of us, only they have a spotlight on them much of the time.

I am thrilled with tax cuts and, like you, am concerned about cuts with a combination of increase spending. It's backwards on it's face given the already ballooning deficits but it's not like Clinton was going to cut spending either.

Trump has shown a willingness to cut bloat and I am cautiously optimistic about what he may cut in the future.

Cutting funding to the UN, for example? Great. Keep it coming.

:thumb:

Absolutely. Like with his golf pro, if a person is incompetent, replace them. At least make them accountable so that mistakes are not repeated.

It's refreshing. Most employers either aren't willing or aren't able to fire people, due to public backlash, unions, or whatever. It's a little funny for me in particular. I was fired once for not being willing to give up my beliefs in exchange for a company belief system, and I kind of enjoyed the experience--in retrospect, at least (it was a bit unnerving at the time for me). They hired me back two days later, when they realized that they had violated both their own policy and equal opportunity regs in firing me.

But in theory they should have been able to fire me for anything they didn't like about me--whether on the job or off the job. My statement makes me cringe, ironically. Is it right for someone to be fired for any reason--even the color of their skin? Well, what if an employee of a skin care product company had some kind of skin disease that left it all red and blotchy all the time--even (or especially) when using their product?

The worst moral episode in our country's history--the Jim Crow era--is repulsive to me. But the problem with Jim Crow wasn't so much the laws or the attitudes of those that pushed for such treatment of blacks, but the ambivalence of the rest of the people.--the going along to get along. I guess that's what got me fired--I wasn't willing to do that. Not trying to toot my own horn, as I don't walk near enough of my talk as I should.

And that pressure from the people is so very powerful when properly applied, that the Jim Crow episode could have quickly slipped into oblivion by good folks doing good things to their neighbors instead of turning their backs on them.

(You may wonder why I pick the Jim Crow era instead of slavery as the worst moral episode, but I'm not going to tell you. )

I've come to realize that it's what he does policy-wise that matters. I think he is in many ways a buffoon on a personal level but I'll support his presidency if I see policy moving in the right direction. I'm not a never-Trumper but he makes himself difficult to like for anyone either on the fence or on the opposite side.

I agree with both of your statements here. What I think is weird is the vehemence against his "character" by those that agree with his "policies". Isn't part of his character revealed in his policies? From the NY Times:
Why I'm Still a NeverTrumper
By BRET STEPHENS
A president's character matters, no matter which policies he champions.


But he does bother me sometimes. Like hearing his voice grates on my nerves.

Back to Moore, my only regret is not speaking out more (see what I did there? ) against Davis. I never intended to have my lack of belief in Moore's recollection of events come across as an endorsement of Davis.

This is the problem with our political system, though i don't know of a better one. Rejecting one candidate, no matter how bad he is, is an implicit endorsement of the other one, no matter how bad he is.

That's always something that has irked me about political tribalism. When I criticized Hillary, her supporters called me a Trump supporter. When I criticize Trump, [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION] calls me a leftist. It hurts my feelings :chuckle:

I don't even think a lot of tribalists agree to large degree with their particular tribe's platforms--they've just picked a side and are sticking with them, usually by repeating the rhetoric of their side.